Creature or Creator: Who's the Monster?

I recently finished reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and I have to say I was awestruck. Previous to the reading, likely because of a lifetime of movie-watching, I was a torch-carrying, pitchfork-yeilding villager. All I ever knew of Frankenstein's monster was his savage, murdering ways; which could only be arrested by burning. I suppose this is the trap we fall into when we watch rather than read.

Shelley's novel does indeed show a violent, murdering monster but as the story develops I found myself tearful over the tenderness and lonliness of this involuntary being. I would even go so far as to say that by the end of the story I felt more compassion for the "monster" than for Dr. Frankenstein. I put quotation marks around monster for this reason: as I read this story I began to wonder who the real monster was - creature or creator.

Dr. Frankenstein created this living being, and having done so abandons it. What happened in Mary Shelley's life that drew her pen to such a thought? Knowing little or nothing of Shelley's life I am left to wonder if this is a personal work for her or a metaphor for what happens in real life. I don't know the statistics, and maybe someday when I have the time I will research it a bit, but I know that fahters abandoning their families has become an epidemic, especially in certain segments of our society. Dr. Frankenstein, in having created this living, breathing creature, had a responsibility to care for and nurture this offspring. Instead, at the very moment of creation, the doctor fled his responsibilities, leaving this creature to the vagaries of a cold and uncaring world.

As the creature learns and grows, experiences the world and the cruelty of the people in it, he becomes bitter and rage takes control of his life. Frankenstein the creature comes into contact with several people with and from whom he begins to learn of love and community. Each time he begins to feel in some way connected with these people, he is discovered and violently driven away. Eventually, after many years of this and especially after a particularly emotional rejection, the creature becomes a monster. The monster finds the creator and explains:

"How can I move thee? Will no entreaties cause thee to turn a favourable eye upon thy creature, who implores thy goodness and compassion? Believe me, Frankenstein, I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity; but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my creator, abhor me; what hope can I gather from your fellow creatures, who owe me nothing? They spurn and hate me. The desert mountains and dreary glaciers are my refuge. [...] These bleak skied I hail, for they are kinder to me than your fellow beings. If the multitude of mankind knew of my existence, they would do as you do, and arm themselves to for my destruction. Shall I not then hate them who abhor me? I will keep no terms with my enemies. I am miserable, and they shall share my wretchedness."

It is too late. The harshness and cruelness of the world around the creature, and the utter lonliness drive him to murder and revenge. Doesn't this sound so much like what we read about in the newspapers and hear on the news every single day? A child, raised by his minimum-wage-earning single mother of six, having no real connections involving love and kindness, raised on the streets, turns to a gang and ends up a violent criminal. And that's just one example, for the fact is we see this kind of thing all the time, probably even know people who have been the victim of abandonment.

While I cannot condone the crimes Shelley's "monster" commits, it becomes more understandable when we learn that his life's journey was such as it was. Which leaves me to wonder - who was the monster? The creature, abandoned at birth and treated horribly his while life? Or the good, intelligent, well-to-do doctor who so capriciously created and abandoned? We walk amongst monsters every day - but I think they're often not the ones I think they are.

Love, Guilt and Death in “The Things they Carried” by GB Shaw

In the inconceivable concept of war struggles occur on a moment-to-moment, place-to-place level and across many planes within each combatant. Beyond the obvious and often glamorized physical struggles of one soldier attempting to dispatch another soldier into the great beyond, soldiers deal with other forms of struggle be they mental, emotional or perhaps even spiritual. In his short story, “The Things they Carried” Tim O’Brien paints a picture of soldiers burdened with these pan-human struggles. From the physical accoutrements of battle to the emotional struggles of friends and family left behind at home, comrades left dead on the field of battle, the mental struggles of remaining sane amidst the insanity of battle, to the attempts to maintain rank and order in front of other men, O’Brien deftly describes the Herculean efforts of these common men. Men carrying much more than their battlefield gear.

Platoon Leader, First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross carried much of the same equipment that the men under his command carried

. “As a first lieutenant and platoon leader (he) carried a compass, maps, code books, binoculars, and a .45-caliber pistol that weighed 2.9 pounds fully loaded” (524). This is a short list of the physical equipment that was carried and through the rest of the story we see that list lengthened to include other objects such as a rucksack, a canteen, knives, and so on. However, the most interesting aspect of this story is the things Jimmy Cross carried that weren’t on the equipment list.

The story begins with the letters from Martha that Jimmy Cross carries. Martha is the girl back home that Jimmy is apparently in love with,

but we go on to learn that she does not seem to reciprocate the sentiment. While a small pile of letters may not weigh much in themselves, the fact is they were hauled or “humped” through the jungles of Viet Nam along with all the required equipment weighing down Lieutenant Cross in ways not immediately evident, for as we shall soon see, these letters carry much more weight than the paper they are written on.
The letters were not love letters in the sense of two people in love, but rather Jimmy Cross was in love with Martha and she wrote those kinds of letters that leaves one reading between the lines, searching, almost deciphering as to whether or not there’s more to what was said. While the letters were signed, “Love, Martha” (522), Lieutenant Cross was perspicacious enough to realize that ‘love’ was not always what it meant. This left the platoon leader “hoping” (522), leading to disastrous consequences later in the story.

On April 16th, as Lieutenant Cross’ platoon was on the dangerous mission of clearing tunnels which often hid the Viet Cong, “Ted Lavender was shot in the head on his way back from peeing” (528). It is a basic military principle that man never wander off on their own in hostile territory. First lieutenant Cross should have and most likely would have known this, but it was allowed to happen anyway. Why was Ted Lavender allowed to go off alone and end up being shot in the head? This tragic event occurred because Lieutenant Cross carried the weight of his hope for the love of Martha. On page 527 O’Brien tells us that “Lieutenant Cross gazed at the tunnel. But he was not there. He was buried with Martha under the white sand at the Jersey shore.” In a moment, a man under Cross’ command was dead because he had lost focus; his mind had wandered to the dreams of the woman he was in love with and the letters that left him hoping.

Equipment, dreams, hopes, love, all things carried into battle. In the case of Lieutenant Jimmy Cross carrying hopes and thoughts of a love not yet obtained, dreams of a life beyond war lead to the death of another soldier. Because of this Cross and the other soldiers, “…all carried ghosts” (526). They carried the ghosts of a lost comrade and the part they played in this death. The other soldiers in the platoon dealt with Lavender’s death in various ways, “Some carried themselves with a sort of wistful resignation, others with pride or stiff soldierly discipline or good humor or macho zeal” (531). Lieutenant Cross however, “…felt shame. He hated himself. He had loved Martha more than his men, and as a consequence Lavender was now dead” (529). He now carried with him not only equipment, hopes and dreams, but also the burdensome weight of guilt. As a result of carrying this guilt around, the lieutenant endeavored to run his platoon by-the-book, “to perform his duties firmly and without negligence” (533).

Every soldier carries on his person an incredible amount of equipment, most essential, some necessary and some neither essential nor necessary to the job at hand. These are the physical burdens of a man at war. However, every soldier also carries emotional and spiritual ‘equipment’, some to help maintain sanity and emotional security, some the emotional scars of the heinous sights, sounds, smells and results of battle. While every soldier deals with these stressors in a different way, it is abundantly clear that, “they all carr(y) ghosts” (526). Tim O’Brien’s story of “The Things They Carried” does a masterful job of describing the burdens of the soldiers of one platoon in the Vietnam War, and especially those of the platoon leader First Lieutenant Jimmy Cross. While this paper describes one aspect of the load carried by one soldier, the story itself is replete with metaphors and examples of the things carried, both physical and otherwise, by the various soldiers in this platoon. O’Brien’s story is a classic tale of the burdens of the modern soldier.

Works Cited
O’Brien, Timothy, “The Things They Carried.” An Introduction to Literature. Ed. Sylvan Barnet et al. 14th ed. New York: Longman, 2006. 522-534.